Fairfax County and Franconia-Springfield Parkways - Alternatives Analysis and Long Term Planning Study

1. Fairfax County & Franconia-Springfield Parkways
Alternatives Analysis & Long Term Planning Study
Public Outreach Summary &
Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
Board Transportation Committee
February 12, 2019
Thomas Burke, Department of Transportation

2. Presentation Overview
Fairfax County & Franconia-Springfield Parkways
Alternatives Analysis & Long-Term Planning Study
 Project Background
 Public Outreach Summary “Fall 2018”
 Resulting Highlights and Themes
 Baseline & Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
 Near Term Next Steps
 Overall Project Schedule
2

3. Project Background
• Determine future network deficiencies using
County’s Traffic Forecasting Model
• Develop alternatives to remedy the deficiencies
• Obtain public input on the findings and the
alternatives
• Refine and prioritize recommendations for
improvements to the corridor through 2040 and
beyond
• Make recommendations for changes to existing
Comprehensive Plan
3
Long-Range Planning Study – Fairfax County/Franconia Springfield
Parkways

4. Project Background
(continued)
• Short-Term Study
• VDOT, in conjunction with Fairfax County, conducted Existing
Conditions study (completed in 2017)
• Developed more than 350 recommendations for short-term
improvements to address existing conditions
• VDOT completed 49 pedestrian/traffic ops/safety projects so far
• Board Transportation Committee Briefing – May 2016
• Concurrent VDOT Fairfax County Widening Project
• Route 29 to Route 123, including interchange at Popes Head
Road/Shirley Gate Road Extension
• Currently in Design, with Design Approval anticipated in mid-2019
4

5. Public Outreach
5
• Public Meetings
o 3 meetings held in October 2018
o Provided overview of the project
o Presented initial traffic analyses
of current Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
o Initiated public engagement
activities
• Online Survey & Input
o Offered 45 days, October 16th to
November 30th
o Included activity tabs
o Supplemented by individual
feedback

6. Public Outreach Summary “Fall 2018”
• Public Meetings
o 75+ meeting attendees
• Project website comment form,
district offices, and emails
o 108 recorded responses
• FCDOT Facebook page
o 71 comments, 281 likes, and
172 shares
• Online Survey
o 15,150 recorded responses
Online Survey: Number of Responses by Zip Code
Received responses from neighboring jurisdictions 6

7. Public Outreach Summary “Fall 2018”
2.1
2.9
3.5
3.9
1.4
HOV Lanes Bike/Ped Transit Roadway
Widening
Express Toll
Lanes
Average Ranking of Corridor
Travel Priorities
7
Agree
47%
Disagree
53%
Average Feedback on Comprehensive
Transportation Plan

8. Public Input Results / Common Themes
8
Widening and Interchanges - More than 1,500 comments
• Support for Widening, but not for HOV-exclusive lane
• Support for interchanges to eliminate signalized intersections
• Concern about impact to property value for homes
Bike/Ped - Less than 500 comments
• Support for enhanced facilities
• Opposition to widening if bike/ped facilities will be impacted
• Support for a continuous bike/trail along the Parkways
Transit - Less than 300 comments
• Support of enhanced transit
• Support for increase in number of Park-and-Ride lots to accommodate transit and
carpooling
• Support for a Metrorail line between Franconia-Springfield Parkway and Dulles
Airport

9. Public Input Results / Common Themes
9
HOV - Nearly 6,000 comments
• Significant opposition to HOV
• Some support of HOV-2+, in lieu of HOV-3+
• Concern about impact to neighborhoods if motorists divert to alternative
routes/local roads
Tolls - Nearly 2,500 comments
• Strong opposition to tolling
• Concern about impact on residential and disadvantaged communities

10. Baseline Strategy
10
Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP)
• CLRP projects, as adopted by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning
Board on November 16, 2016
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Projects
• Improve existing facilities to meet current design guidelines
• Address grading issues
• Complete missing connections within the existing network

11. Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
11
• Strategy A
• Expanded Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
• Strategy B
• Comprehensive Plan
Without HOV
• Strategy C
• Strategy B + Capacity
Improvements
• Strategy D
• HOV Feeder
• Strategy E
• Enhanced Transit and HOV-2+
Baseline
Strategy +

12. Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
12
A. Expanded Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
• Construct shared use path on both sides of Parkways
• Considered by segment
• Provides flexibility in access and travel for bicyclists and
pedestrians
Example Cross Section

13. Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
13
B. Comprehensive Plan Without HOV
• Number of lanes based on Comprehensive Plan
• Varies from 6 to 8 lanes
• Interchange Improvements - As per existing Comprehensive Plan
• Network connections – New or widened roadway connections as per existing Comprehensive
Plan
• Enhanced Public Transportation - Express bus service without HOV
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements – as in Baseline
Example Cross Section
• Paved shoulder
• Shared use path on both sides
(not necessarily required on both sides)
• Graded ditches and center median

14. Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
14
C. Strategy B + Capacity Improvements
• Alternative intersection treatments
• Interchange (grade separated) improvements
• Localized widening (e.g. auxiliary lanes) at hot spots
Example of At-Grade Improvement
Example of Grade-Separation

15. Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
15
D. HOV Feeder
• Number of general purpose lanes based on Comprehensive Plan
• Additional more direct HOV connections to/from Existing Toll Facilities
(Dulles Toll Road, I-66, I-95) for short segments
• Grade-separated flyover connections
• More direct connections as compared to general purpose traffic access
Example Cross Section
• 3 GP and 1 HOV-3+
• Separated directional HOV feeder lanes

16. Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
16
E. Enhanced Transit and HOV-2+
• Increased limited access along the Parkways
• Replace signals with interchanges
• Greatest benefit to HOV-2+ and transit users
• Express bus service in managed (HOV2+) lanes
• 6 to 8 lanes total
• Additional Park and Ride lots/bus stops
Example Cross Section
• 2 GP and 1 HOV-2+ lane

17. Near Term Next Steps
17
• Board feedback on Preliminary Strategies (current stage)
• Please provide comments by February 19th
• Public Outreach #2
• Late February/Early March 2019
• 3 public meetings
• Summary of Online Survey
• Present Preliminary Mitigation Strategies
• Solicit public input on proposed strategies
• Quantify the feedback
• Build two preferred concepts
• Potential for a unified concept for the entire corridor
• Evaluate two concepts
• Present results in Summer 2019

18. Overall Project Schedule
18
• Completed
• Gather feedback (Outreach Fall 2018)
• Develop alternative mitigation strategies
• Upcoming
• Gather more feedback (Outreach Spring 2019)
• Evaluate, compare mitigation alternatives
• Results, more feedback (Outreach Summer 2019)
• Recommendations & Prioritization (Early 2020)
• Documentation (Early 2020)
• Board Consideration/Endorsement (Spring 2020)
• Board Authorization of Appropriate Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (Spring 2020)